Hacker News Reader

Comment by civility | Hacker News Reader

Because there isn't any reason for me to jump to a conclusion. For other reasons, I already have a carbon footprint and voting record almost anyone in that consensus would approve of. Is it really important that I "believe" all the things people are afraid of? I'm pretty content to leave some topics unresolved until I get more information.

View on HN

I am not a fan of "believe" or dogma of any kind myself. I tend to go on likelihood. I ask myself is it more likely that the 97% are correct or the 3%?

I think Bayes theorem might be worthwhile here. Besides, going with the majority or authority as a principal is almost the definition of dogma. That's not likelihood in any rigorous sense.

When weighing up the likelihood of something it is valid to consider the opinions of experts. Dogma is believing what an authority says is incontrovertibly true. I am not saying that man made climate change is incontrovertibly true, only incontrovertibly highly likely. It is true that the view of the great majority of the experts in a field has authority, particularly in regards to science, but it is an justifiable authority, not one for example one built solely on tradition.

Fortunately Galileo didn't follow that strategy

Well sure, he did original research.

If you are suggesting most people should do original climate research, you are going to be disappointed.

If I get cancer, I assume that consensus medical science is going to give me the best treatments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2ftwt1/iama_scientist...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com